Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human” • Hacker News Board

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#341

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Mar 25, 2022, 8:00 PM UTC

DJHenk wrote: post #328

joshuamorton wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't address the question I asked. What does speaking to a human accomplish? Why does that solve your problem in a way that a ticket doesn't? You seem to be implicitly assuming that the human on the phone has more power than the one behind a ticket system, but there's no reason to believe that. If the rule is that you need to provide specific information to recover your account, speaking to a human won't fix…

> You seem to be implicitly assuming that the human on the phone has more power than the one behind a ticket system, but there's no reason to believe that. It is not necessarily about power, it is about judgement. However clever or 'smart' the systems we design, there is still a vast gap between what automation can understand and what a human can understand. There are countless examples of a system only doing what it…

Of course it's about power. If the answer is "we can't recover your account by security policy", speaking to someone who believes you isn't going to help you (and in many cases, this is a good thing, as tricking account recover techs is something scammers are good at).

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#342

Post by jareklupinski » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 3:32 AM UTC

scottLobster wrote: post #130

rmbyrro wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet 99.99% of people who complain about not having a human to talk don't want to pay a single dollar for that human.

Louis Rossmann talks about this in the context of his old electronics supply company. One of the reasons he started that company was that the suppliers he had previously worked with had horrible customer service, and a lot of people he knew professionally complained about it. Thought he found a niche in the market. So long story short he created a supply company with dedicated customer support, but his prices were co…

> professionally complained

If I told my cost center that I went with a more expensive vendor because "they were friendlier", that would pretty much open an investigation...

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#343

Post by joshuamorton » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 8:22 PM UTC

hackerfromthefu wrote: post #313

joshuamorton wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't address the question I asked. What does speaking to a human accomplish? Why does that solve your problem in a way that a ticket doesn't? You seem to be implicitly assuming that the human on the phone has more power than the one behind a ticket system, but there's no reason to believe that. If the rule is that you need to provide specific information to recover your account, speaking to a human won't fix…

It at least changes the cost dynamics away from the companies just shafting users because only the users wear cost. Clearly companies are en masse externalizing the costs of support onto users, and plainly not supporting users in fixing real problems with systems that are now required to live in society. It's at the stage where it's breaking our well functioning civil society and turning the first world into a third…

But see this is my point, it's not just about "speaking to a human", it's about having an empowered ombudsperson who can circumvent the normal systems of authority at the company to resolve user issues for certain people.

That's a much, much, much bigger ask than just "speaking to a human".

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#344

Post by pempem » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 11:48 PM UTC

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #297

pempem wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally if you're making money off of me or if I'm giving money in exchange for services - customer. Here are some real world examples that would hold up pre-current state: Club: even if I dont pay for a beverage or cover, I am in fact a customer. Shown by the fact that if I get injured at said club, or other events occur the responsible parties are managing/own the club. Print shop: Go into a shop, pay for a thing…

I hear you, and you're point seems logical to me. However, would this not put an end to the public web as we know it? Specifically self-hosting. What do you think about implementing this with a minimum organization size? I just do not see this same problem happening with small firms, generally they are easy to get in touch with. I wouldn't want them regulated unless the nature of the problem changed.

Completely okay with it being restricted to a revenue generation or size of company.

I'd make the discrepancy of revenue generation because otherwise a company may just find itself full of contractors and not enough FTEs to qualify for having this 'right to speak with a human' (like Uber).

wdyt

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#345

Post by FWKevents » Sun, Mar 27, 2022, 3:58 PM UTC

bcrl wrote: post #317

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There should absolutely be a "right to speak with a human", like a restaurant must pass health inspections, and other such things. > If they can't afford it as a basic cost of doing business, they can always close. If you're not paying for a service, are you even really a customer? Hacker News is free. Do you really expect to be able to pick up the phone and call someone at Y Combinator to discuss your Hacker News…

The internet isn't free; we pay with our privacy! I would be far happier if I could pay for random internet services with credits from my browser (possibly refilled by my ISP every month) rather than selling my privacy off to some unknown advertiser I never really wanted to be associated with if I actually knew what was going on. Micropayments built into the browser would really be an improvement and better align the…

I agree with you, but, unfortunately, research shows that only 5% of customers care that their privacy is being sold off. The rest don't care. Accuweather, for instance, (which is so lousy with ads that it compromises the experience of using the app,) offered a deal where you could pay $5/year and not be tracked or have ads. I took advantage of the offer. But so few others did that Accuweather cancelled the service. I guess it wasn't worth their trouble to keep track of who had paid and so didn't get ads for less than 5% of their users to sign on.

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#346

Post by bcrl » Wed, Mar 30, 2022, 1:07 AM UTC

FWKevents wrote: post #345

bcrl wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet isn't free; we pay with our privacy! I would be far happier if I could pay for random internet services with credits from my browser (possibly refilled by my ISP every month) rather than selling my privacy off to some unknown advertiser I never really wanted to be associated with if I actually knew what was going on. Micropayments built into the browser would really be an improvement and better align the…

I agree with you, but, unfortunately, research shows that only 5% of customers care that their privacy is being sold off. The rest don't care. Accuweather, for instance, (which is so lousy with ads that it compromises the experience of using the app,) offered a deal where you could pay $5/year and not be tracked or have ads. I took advantage of the offer. But so few others did that Accuweather cancelled the service.…

I too won't bother to sign up for a $5 per year subscription to a website, as the pain of a potential credit card compromise is more than the $5/a subscription is worth. That's why I think it needs to go via a browser / ISP based system. Using credit cards is simply too much friction for micropayments. Give me one place to signup that covers the majority of websites that I use and it's a completely different value proposition.

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#347

Post by fao_ » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 10:16 AM UTC

drstewart wrote: post #320

fao_ wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they can't afford it as a basic cost of doing business, they can always close. This 100%. It reminds me of the similar issue of zero-hour contracts and living wages. One person I know complained that putting restrictions on zero hour contacts, and upping the amount that he would have to pay workers, would mean he couldn't hire any (for his extremely early-stage startup with no investment(!)). In a similar vein,…

>if you can't afford to pay employees, don't hire them. If you can't afford to work a job, don't take it.

Wage slavery is a fact and inevitability of capitalism

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#348

Post by Handytinge » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 1:39 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #334

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There should absolutely be a "right to speak with a human", like a restaurant must pass health inspections, and other such things. > If they can't afford it as a basic cost of doing business, they can always close. If you're not paying for a service, are you even really a customer? Hacker News is free. Do you really expect to be able to pick up the phone and call someone at Y Combinator to discuss your Hacker News…

> If you're not paying for a service, are you even really a customer? Places where you "don't pay" still have certain regulations they need to pass. If you give free food to people on the street (for some marketing event or charity or whatever) you still need to pass the cost of sanitary inspections and such. > Or how about GitHub? If they were obligated to provide phone support to anyone with an account, their only…

> For one "If you wanted to use GitHub, you'd have to get a paid account" is not that ridiculous. It's how businesses worked since the dawn of time: people paid to get their services. If GitHub and every other "selling eyeballs" business is forced to come back to that, that's a win in my book.

It's not a win for the hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries who cannot justify the costing. The free account model has massive value to an unimaginable number of people in the world, whereas to those like you and I it's of minor benefit.